Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (45520)	4/15/1998 1:20:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Matty:The following is my IMO only,( gee, I love saying that crapola) For anyone to say that you should not involve yourself, because you are not a shareholder, is cutting hairs. (and wrong, IMO) You have just as much right to contribute as anyone else, forgetting the fact that as a member of SI, that is a given. While it is true that Matty has pulled some ..shall be kind, and say, stupid-bonehead-lets-choke-him stunts, that is not really the issue now. The issue should be what can be done, and how do we get it accomplished. I believe Matty is trying to help, so why not give him te benfit of the doubt? I believe that tonto is trying to help, if you all would read his posts with a little less defensiveness, and a little more openness, I thin you all would get at least SOME ideas. As it stands now, I fear that a lot of people are just saying.."If it comes from tonto, I don't want to hear it". Listen, even I stumble across something worthwile saying. I hope I have not offended anyone, that is not my intention, at this point. After RMIl gets back to trading, the squeeze works, (if it is meant to be), I promise I'll go back to my old insulting ways. Don't forget, Rover looks up to me as a role model, and I can't dissappoint the little felow. al

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (45520)	4/15/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Angel D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

Matty, RE: "using some sense". To answer your question, I believe it could be POSSIBLE for the nays to want a shareholders' meeting IF they are, indeed, working against us and IF they thought it would be an ill-timed thing to do, as Pugs has suggested. Also, my idea of a shareholders' meeting would not be to rent a ballroom in N.Y. and worry about who can be invited, etc. It would seem to me that normally such meetings are held in some proximaty to the corporate headquarters and that one would expect the attendance of the officers and the board of directors, as well as shareholders. Even if this were arranged, Pugs may be correct in that the timing is not right. What I have espoused is the idea of a "meeting of shareholders" with the officers of the company to gather information and facts, if possible. I think this should be done as quickly as possible, but the shareholders need to decide who should represent them and what exact questions need to be answered. "Where's the money?", for example is not necessarily a valid question, as they don't have control of it. "What contingency plans are you working on?" might be a better question. Just a thought. I really feel that this is the best first approach to make than have everyone chanting "I want a shareholders' meeting". Regards, AD